The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Scale: Development and Validation of the General Measure
Abstract
PURPOSE: We developed and validated a brief, yet sensitive, 33-item general cancer quality-of-life (QL) measure for evaluating patients receiving cancer treatment, called the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) scale. METHODS AND RESULTS: The five-phase validation process involved 854 patients with cancer and 15 oncology specialists. The initial pool of 370 overlapping items for breast, lung, and colorectal cancer was generated by open-ended interview with patients experienced with the symptoms of cancer and oncology professionals. Using preselected criteria, items were reduced to a 38-item general version. Factor and scaling analyses of these 38 items on 545 patients with mixed cancer diagnoses resulted in the 28-item FACT-general (FACT-G, version 2). In addition to a total score, this version produces subscale scores for physical, functional, social, and emotional well-being, as well as satisfaction with the treatment relationship. Coefficients of reliability and validity were uniformly high. The scale's ability to discriminate patients on the basis of stage of disease, performance status rating (PSR), and hospitalization status supports its sensitivity. It has also demonstrated sensitivity to change over time. Finally, the validity of measuring separate areas, or dimensions, of QL was supported by the differential responsiveness of subscales when applied to groups known to differ along the dimensions of physical, functional, social, and emotional well-being. CONCLUSION: The FACT-G meets or exceeds all requirements for use in oncology clinical trials, including ease of administration, brevity, reliability, validity, and responsiveness to clinical change. Selecting it for a clinical trial adds the capability to assess the relative weight of various aspects of QL from the patient's perspective.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Quality of Life in Chronic Disease Patients
Megari, K. (2013) · Health Psychology Research · doi:10.4081/hpr.2013.932 · Cited by 895
Mutrie, N., Campbell, A. M., Whyte, F., McConnachie, A., Emslie, C., Lee, L., Kearney, N., Walker, A., & Ritchie, D. (2007) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39094.648553.ae · Cited by 440
Epstein, R. M., Duberstein, P. R., Fenton, J. J., Fiscella, K., Hoerger, M., Tancredi, D. J., Xing, G., Gramling, R., Mohile, S., Franks, P., et al. (2016) · JAMA Oncology · doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.4373 · Cited by 316
Fatigue is the most important symptom for advanced cancer patients who have had chemotherapy
Butt, Z., Rosenbloom, S. K., Abernethy, A. P., Beaumont, J. L., Paul, D., Hampton, D., Jacobsen, P. B., Syrjala, K. L., Von Roenn, J. H., & Cella, D. (2008) · Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network · doi:10.6004/jnccn.2008.0036 · Cited by 195
Self-citationRohánszky, M., Berényi, K., Fridrik, D., & Pusztafalvi, H. (2017) · Orvosi Hetilap · doi:10.1556/650.2017.30817 · Cited by 11
Metadata
- Authors
- Cella, D. F., Tulsky, D. S., Gray, G., Sarafian, B., Linn, E., Bonomi, A., Silberman, M., Yellen, S. B., Winicour, P., & Brannon, J.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2023-12-10
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 35
- Pages
- 5335-5344
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W4389417875
- Cited by
- 181
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Scale: Development and Validation of the General Measure. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.22.02775
- The paper
- Cella, D. F., Tulsky, D. S., Gray, G., Sarafian, B., Linn, E., Bonomi, A., Silberman, M., Yellen, S. B., Winicour, P., & Brannon, J. (2023). The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Scale: Development and Validation of the General Measure. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.22.02775
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.